This study is a common citation of ivermectin believers, has been reported widely, and I think is a great teaching tool in how little effort it takes to be critical about research findings 1/npic.twitter.com/YDZNB1JP5R
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
12/n In addition, the authors pre-registered 3 primary outcomes. I can only see one (viral clearance) properly assessed in the paper (shedding is somewhat assessed, but it looks like they didn't get enough samples to statistically analyse this)pic.twitter.com/wv4hnBhNNE
13/n Anyway, the main issue is that, if you use the pre-registered protocol, the study appears to have null results
And yet, reported as positive to massive worldwide acclaim 
14/n This has nothing to do with fraud, takes literally minutes to check, and I encourage everyone to do so. Please let me know if I've made an error somewhere
15/n Also, to be clear - I'm not accusing the authors of any research misconduct, this is just very basic due diligence that everyone should do for any trial that they read
16/n Also worth noting that it is entirely possible the study still has some positive results when you add these patients back in - the point is their primary outcome, which is the main thing reported, seems to change substantially when these people are included!
Just a small comment - the primary endpoint as defined in this article was reduction of viral-load on the 6th day, not the 10th (and the results on day 10 are not statically meaningful anyway, even before your correction).
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.